| XBK Chat (unofficial archive) A meeting place for past members of Brahma Kumaris
FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups
Profile You have no new messages Log out
Revelation
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: Revelation |
Kind of continuing from the subject of revelation which came up in the thread ‘Re-writing murlis...' http://xbkchat.com/xbkforum/viewtopic.php?t=705&start=105, here is the view of a sceptic, Thomas Paine, from ‘The Age of Reason’ (1794): Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all. No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him... But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate any thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are capable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of himself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to good ones. You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word ‘revelation’...
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: |
Here is a question for XBK’s who do not accept the BK view of God literally speaking through Brahma Baba. As Paine says above the various religions are generally based on some kind of communication from God, each of which may condemn the others as false. If however, one comes to ‘disbelieve them all’, where is there left to go? One XBK experience is that of seeing the other religions as imperfect imitations of the truth then encountering BK and thinking that one has stumbled upon the real unadulterated truth - that which other religions are trying to imitate. However over time this distinction between BK and other religions may begin to dissolve and the XBK concludes that BK is just another imitation, albeit a better imitation than the others. What does this tell us about God? I think there are two conclusions – one is that there is no God (as I think ex-XBKChat member Kevin the Marxist concluded) or that there is a God but not the kind of God who communicates directly with us. The point is of course that if he was going to do so, we might think he would have done so by now after so many thousand years – or what is he waiting for? Of course there are certain universal spiritual truths that we can know, for example the impermanence of the physical body, but such things are self-evident ie we don’t need revelation to tell us this. What we do need revelation for is to know the metaphysical reality, the fundamental questions of where we have come from and where we are going - and not in a poetic sense, for example some New Age type people say ‘oh we come from light’ and I think what the **** does that mean?? Interestingly the different religions agree that there is a higher reality, but they disagree about what that reality is. In one sense the various religions are different conceptualisations of the unseen spiritual reality that is behind the experience of life. In meditation we can feel the ‘the truth of who we are’ but as soon as we try to articulate what that truth is, to ‘descend’ to the level of language, there is difficulty. So I think in this experience of life, we will necessarily ask these questions and there will necessarily be different interpretations and different claims that God has intervened to reveal the truth. So my question for XBK’s is that if you don’t accept BK as the direct revelation of God where does that leave us? Why has God not given us the true revelation? If God is not a revealing God, what kind of God is that?
Joel Joined: 09 Nov 2004 Posts: 102 |
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: Where else to go? |
Uddhava wrote:
Here is a question for XBK’s who do not accept the BK view of God literally speaking through Brahma Baba. As Paine says above the various religions are generally based on some kind of communication from God, each of which may condemn the others as false. If however, one comes to ‘disbelieve them all’, where is there left to go? [snip] So my question for XBK’s is that if you don’t accept BK as the direct revelation of God where does that leave us? Why has God not given us the true revelation? If God is not a revealing God, what kind of God is that?
First of all, Uddhava, thanks for that quote from Thomas Paine. Gives me a good reason to read The Age of Reason. To address your question, for me the issue is not significant in my life in that I don't believe I need to conceptualize and relate to a concept of God or a real God or any particular God to access creativity in myself that exists below the semantic, linguistic rational-conceptional level of thought-speech. Further, I think it may be worth noting that the acts of speaking and writing are first and foremost physical actions driven by biological metabolic processes; there is no implicit guarantee that such processes elucidate the nature of reality. Someone may say claim they do so (just as they may say God speaks to them) but that doesn't prove anything. Just to speak to a room full of people, even to wow them to ooh!'s and aah!'s, does it necessarily speak to all events, everywhere on the globe and throughout all time?? Could anyone ever even check? I believe most conceptual argumentative speech and writing (as opposed to creative speech and writing) is more likely invisibly crafted to justify a person's existing unconscious biases to themselves as to somehow "discover" something new. Our conscious processes are a thin veneer over the vastly complicated events occurring in connection of sky, body and earth. Logical processes as a tool of last resort are, in my opinion, highly unreliable. To paraphrase someone (maybe the NLP guys, who heard it from someone else) the semantic map is not the bodily experienced territory. So to summarize my opinion and return to your question of where there is left to go, Uddhava, in my opinion, there remains the territory of dreams, the collective unconscious, the Void, the spaces created in the context of the many people, even animals, plants, rocks, snowfalls, lightning and sunsets with which we interact. Some find spaces to go in the acts of writing, speaking or creating of music, some in the reciting of the scriptures, some in the midst of a sports competition or even a war, the acts of fighting and dying; the entire spectrum of human activity. Maybe the question can be turned around: where is there *not* a space to go? Happy explorations! I will read other posts on this topic with interest.
howiemac Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Scotland |
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
over time this distinction between BK and other religions may begin to dissolve and the XBK concludes that BK is just another imitation, albeit a better imitation than the others.
this touches a chord..
Quote:
if he was going to do so (communicate directly) , we might think he would have done so by now after so many thousand years – or what is he waiting for?
well i do buy the BK line on this: that only at the end of an old cycle is God required to intervene as a catalyst to bring about the 're-spiritualisation' of every being and thing, for the birth of the new cycle.. the rest of the time we are very capable of degrading everything all by ourselves...
Quote:
there will necessarily be different interpretations and different claims that God has intervened to reveal the truth
and, as Joel indicated, we cannot verify these claims, except (as per Thomas Paine) through our own direct experience...
Quote:
So my question for XBK’s is that if you don’t accept BK as the direct revelation of God where does that leave us?
as XBKs
Quote:
Why has God not given us the true revelation? If God is not a revealing God, what kind of God is that?
God may be giving us the real deal directly, if we are open to receiving it, using Brahma as a signpost to show us the way - ie follow in BBs footsteps, establish your own direct link with God and thereby comes the true 'revelation'
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
howiemac wrote:
we cannot verify these claims, except (as per Thomas Paine) through our own direct experience...
Well I think Paine rejects altogether the idea that God speaks on the gross level of human language whether in Hebrew, Arabic, English, Hindi or anything else. I guess he concludes that the various such claims of the different religions indicate that there is a human tendency to want to believe that God speaks to us in this way.
Quote:
God may be giving us the real deal directly, if we are open to receiving it, using Brahma as a signpost to show us the way - ie follow in BBs footsteps, establish your own direct link with God and thereby comes the true 'revelation'
But how can that be the 'real deal directly' - you mean that God reveals the truth by us learning what is not true? This is at best indirect. Anyway I can’t reduce revelation to 'a direct link with God' – this is of course incredibly important but still there is something missing ie answers to the fundamental questions about where we come from and where we are going. Does it make sense to reject direct revelation on the one hand but retain belief in God on the other - the obvious question being that if God exists why would he not give us direct revelation?
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Where else to go? |
Joel wrote:
To address your question, for me the issue is not significant in my life in that I don't believe I need to conceptualize and relate to a concept of God or a real God or any particular God to access creativity in myself that exists below the semantic, linguistic rational-conceptional level of thought-speech.
Ok but then I am not saying that the purpose of knowledge of God is to access creativity - I think that clearly people can and do lead creative and spiritual lives with only imperfect knowledge of God or universal spiritual truths. The purpose in wanting to know would be mainly a perhaps natural desire to want to know the the truth but also a concern about what are the implications (about God) if we don't have direct revelation.
Quote:
Further, I think it may be worth noting that the acts of speaking and writing are first and foremost physical actions driven by biological metabolic processes; there is no implicit guarantee that such processes elucidate the nature of reality. Someone may say claim they do so (just as they may say God speaks to them) but that doesn't prove anything... Logical processes as a tool of last resort are, in my opinion, highly unreliable.
OK but then the point of revelation is that it is not human speculation, which I would agree is highly unreliable, but is from God, who would know. Of course the various religions do claim to have exactly this. I agree that human conceptualisations in the sense of speculation are of little value, but what would be of great value would be direct revelation from God. Most religions of course agree with this and so claim to answer our questions. Yes there are limitations to what can be expressed in language but God could still communicate a great deal if he was so inclined.
Quote:
So to summarize my opinion and return to your question of where there is left to go, Uddhava, in my opinion, there remains the territory of dreams, the collective unconscious, the Void, the spaces created in the context of the many people, even animals, plants, rocks, snowfalls, lightning and sunsets with which we interact. Some find spaces to go in the acts of writing, speaking or creating of music, some in the reciting of the scriptures, some in the midst of a sports competition or even a war, the acts of fighting and dying; the entire spectrum of human activity.
I agree that there is much to see and do in life, so my question about where is there to go is more about religious knowledge - is there only poetry and metaphor? Should we then immerse ourselves in activity and try to forget that there is an elephant in the room saying that we don't know how we come to be here?
howiemac Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Scotland |
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:38 am Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
Well I think Paine rejects altogether the idea that God speaks on the gross level of human language whether in Hebrew, Arabic, English, Hindi or anything else.
God communicates directly soul to soul (ie telepathy), not by language. God can grant visions, and sometimes does. I agree that God does not speak on the "gross level of human language" - so i maintain that Brahma (or Jesus or Mohammed or whichever prophet) does the talking, not Shiva (or God or Allah). The words can be at best a crude approximation of some aspects of the divine revelation received by these prophets.
Quote:
Yes there are limitations to what can be expressed in language but God could still communicate a great deal if he was so inclined.
God is beyond language, which is why a human intermediary is required to step things down to "our level". The "truth" can only be experienced through more direct (and less limited) forms of communication than language. Whoever receives such a direct revelation then has the same difficulty in communicating it to others. It is frustrating, for sure, to be waiting for revelation and receiving none. But i believe that thoe of us who are open to it will be granted divine visions in due course - meanwhile, understanding the real nature of things is not conducive to participating in everyday mundane life, and so maybe we are being kept in the dark for our own protection, otrherwise we would be in real danger of being 'crucified' by the societies we live in...
Joel Joined: 09 Nov 2004 Posts: 102 |
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Where else to go? |
Uddhava wrote:
Joel wrote:
To address your question, for me the issue is not significant in my life in that I don't believe I need to conceptualize and relate to a concept of God or a real God or any particular God to access creativity in myself that exists below the semantic, linguistic rational-conceptional level of thought-speech.
Ok but then I am not saying that the purpose of knowledge of God is to access creativity - I think that clearly people can and do lead creative and spiritual lives with only imperfect knowledge of God or universal spiritual truths. The purpose in wanting to know would be mainly a perhaps natural desire to want to know the the truth but also a concern about what are the implications (about God) if we don't have direct revelation.
I'm not sure what to do about some embedded beliefs in your statements, Uddhava. "natural desire to want to know the truth" - natural for who? how many of six billion people have you asked? - 'the truth' -- so this means you believe there is one Truth that can be known in abstract? Is there some presumption of new possibilities available to me if I know this so-called Truth? What would those be? "concern about the implications (about God) if we don't have direct revelation" So you believe there is a god, and implications (presumably bad) if we don't know that god. There were definite consequences for the Hawaiians that accepted the god brought by the missionaries, although these seemed tied to their participation in the economic and political changes initiated by these same missionaries. As far as I can see, belief in a particular true god has most visible consequences in the person's relations with other people, especially with those sharing the same beliefs. And to tell you frankly, anyone using the word "truth" especially in the sense of a singular absolute The Truth(tm) raises a red flag for me. Do you maintain that one description or prescription can apply to everyone in the whole world?
Quote:
Quote:
Further, I think it may be worth noting that the acts of speaking and writing are first and foremost physical actions driven by biological metabolic processes; there is no implicit guarantee that such processes elucidate the nature of reality. Someone may say claim they do so (just as they may say God speaks to them) but that doesn't prove anything... Logical processes as a tool of last resort are, in my opinion, highly unreliable.
OK but then the point of revelation is that it is not human speculation, which I would agree is highly unreliable, but is from God, who would know. Of course the various religions do claim to have exactly this. I agree that human conceptualisations in the sense of speculation are of little value, but what would be of great value would be direct revelation from God. Most religions of course agree with this and so claim to answer our questions. Yes there are limitations to what can be expressed in language but God could still communicate a great deal if he was so inclined.
I've read quite a bit of channeled material, which seems to come from otherworldly sources. I don't see much evidence for the single source you suggest exists. But if you have a BK or PBK faith, perhaps you believe that the revelations through Lehkraj Kirpalani or the Dixon-shankar fellow are those of God. If so, good luck to you. The BKs believe that God's revelations by their very content prove that that God exists and is the highest authority. Those "revelations" did not ultimately reveal to me what I seek in my life; after a time they were no longer helpful. I agree that otherworldly sources can communicate a great deal. I'm not sure how you would define whether such communications constitute truth. Some truth, perhaps, but The Truth??
Quote:
Quote:
So to summarize my opinion and return to your question of where there is left to go, Uddhava, in my opinion, there remains the territory of dreams, the collective unconscious, the Void, the spaces created in the context of the many people, even animals, plants, rocks, snowfalls, lightning and sunsets with which we interact. Some find spaces to go in the acts of writing, speaking or creating of music, some in the reciting of the scriptures, some in the midst of a sports competition or even a war, the acts of fighting and dying; the entire spectrum of human activity.
I agree that there is much to see and do in life, so my question about where is there to go is more about religious knowledge - is there only poetry and metaphor? Should we then immerse ourselves in activity and try to forget that there is an elephant in the room saying that we don't know how we come to be here?
Sorry, I don't see an elephant. As far as I know, and as several witnesses attest, I was born from my mother. If an answer to a more metaphysical interpretation of your question could give me peace and happiness or health or wealth or wisdom, etc. it might be interesting, but at this point, I don't see any meaningful certainty about myself coming from organized religion. I find plenty of places to go, sometimes they may be holy books or places of worship. Perhaps you have a single refuge in god. I can find a refuge in each breath of my life, when I am aware.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
Joel wrote:
I'm not sure what to do about some embedded beliefs in your statements, Uddhava. "natural desire to want to know the truth" - natural for who? how many of six billion people have you asked?
Well I didn’t say natural for everyone - for a start not everyone has a religious inclination. However most religions including BK are based on answering these questions and this indicates that many or most people seek these answers. Revelation plays a smaller part in Buddhism for example, in which there is no personal or revealing God.
Quote:
Is there some presumption of new possibilities available to me if I know this so-called Truth? What would those be?
This is a good point – suppose we could know the complete truth – then what? Perhaps a certain mystery is a necessary part of this life, and the Truth is like the horizon which we can see in the distance but never reach.
Quote:
And to tell you frankly, anyone using the word "truth" especially in the sense of a singular absolute The Truth(tm) raises a red flag for me. Do you maintain that one description or prescription can apply to everyone in the whole world?
Well let’s just clarify some definitions here. I would say that there are two aspects to Truth with a big T. One is which, if any, is the true religion and then the metaphysical constitution of life, why we are here, what happens after death, in as far as such things can be expressed in language. The other aspect is realisation of universal spiritual truth in general and of these above specific truths in particular. If there is any such thing as Truth it would only be when these two aspects come together. So the question is not whether Truth is possible for ‘everyone in the whole world’ (surely not) but whether it is possible at all, for anyone – whether Truth and this life can ever meet. Those who believe in direct revelation – whether Christian, Muslim, BK or whatever would say yes. Ironically most religions agree that there is direct revelation but they disagree about what that revelation is - bible, Qur’an, murli etc. All direct revelation religions acknowledge the limitations of language, so the question is not whether the Truth can be expressed in language, but rather whether is there a direct revelation God. I see no reason in theory why there should not be a direct revelation God (again the limitation of language is irrelevant), so the next question is whether in practice, in this world, we can accept one of the religions as direct revelation.
Quote:
I've read quite a bit of channeled material, which seems to come from otherworldly sources. I don't see much evidence for the single source you suggest exists.
By ‘single source’ do you mean God? Well suppose we are trying to make sense of the diversity of religious ideas – what are the possibilities, how do the different religions / formulations of truth relate to the Truth? One possibility is that one of the known religions (Islam, BK or whatever) is the real direct revelation ie as close as possible to the Truth as language can allow, and other religions are a more or less imperfect imitation of the true religion. Another possibility is that there is no direct revelation God and that that all the known religions, without exception, are an imperfect imitation of an unrevealed Truth. If so, then the next question is what can we say, if anything, about this ‘Truth’ that is the unknown source of all religions? This is what I mean by the ‘implications’ of rejecting direct revelation – there is a huge gulf between saying that we can know the Truth, and saying actually we can’t know much at all, that the religions are imperfect imitations but we can’t say of what. The materialist / Marxist of course says that the whole thing is an illusion, that there is no divine reality behind the material world, no Truth, that we only imagine there is. Anyway these three possibilities are how I see it, I suppose I don’t leave much room for multiple 'otherworldly sources', so I am not sure how they would fit in.
Quote:
If an answer to a more metaphysical interpretation of your question could give me peace and happiness or health or wealth or wisdom, etc. it might be interesting, but at this point, I don't see any meaningful certainty about myself coming from organized religion.
Ok but I guess that is because you have rightly or wrongly rejected the idea of direct revelation, and that having arrived at this conclusion, the mind adjusts to not seeking these answers. I haven’t made this adjustment so I guess that for me this uncertainty and lack of knowing causes some anxiety.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: |
howiemac wrote:
God communicates directly soul to soul (ie telepathy), not by language. God can grant visions, and sometimes does.
OK so when you say 'God can grant visions' is this just a figure of speech or does this mean a personal God with a will?
Quote:
The "truth" can only be experienced through more direct (and less limited) forms of communication than language.
OK but I still think that language is important in expressing what it can. I mean yes we have to acknowledge the limitations of language but we shouldn't go too far and say that all language is meaningless so let's just meditate. For the Christian for example, the language that 'Jesus died for our sins' is not meaningless - this language is saying something hugely important about the metaphysical reality which is either true or not true. This is what I was saying in my last post to Joel that the language is potentially an important part of Truth. Another example of this is either there is reincarnation or there is not - the two are very different and have huge consequences. So even though language is ultimately inadequate, it can express some important aspects of metaphysical reality. Hence in terms of the possibility of direct revelation, I say that it is not language that is the main issue but whether there is a direct revelation God.
howiemac Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Scotland |
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:53 am Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
OK so when you say 'God can grant visions' is this just a figure of speech or does this mean a personal God with a will?
My understanding of God is as per BK gyan - ie Shiva, a human soul who never takes a body, and as such is a real personality with very powerful (because unfettered by impurity) will. I realise many people have an entirely different conception of God, as a universal force - akin (or identical?) to the brahm element, and i can relate to that belief too - but in my experience God has a distinct personality and a great sense of humour. Your conception of God may be completely different from mine, but that doesn't mean that either of us are wrong (or right..), we may each have different perceptions and conceptions of reality which are right (or the Truth) individually for us. To me, what matters is that each one's belief works for them. The diversity of humanity is a great thing.
Quote:
I still think that language is important in expressing what it can
I guess i agree with you on that, or i wouldn't be participating in this forum!
Quote:
it is not language that is the main issue but whether there is a direct revelation God.
having experienced some direct revelation myself (with no language involved..) i believe it came from God, but i may be completely wrong....
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:27 am Post subject: |
howiemac wrote:
having experienced some direct revelation myself (with no language involved..) i believe it came from God,
Well I guess we are using the term ‘direct revelation’ in different ways. What you refer to is perhaps a personal or private revelation which does not require language because it is not intended to be communicated to others. The other type of direct revelation is that which becomes the foundation of a religion. Now this does require language because it is God communicating not just with howiemac but with mankind, and the recipient is the vehicle or channel by which God speaks to mankind, for example Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Brahma Baba etc. That which God communicates via these channels concerns such crucial matters as the origin and destiny of life, and this can only be passed on to others via language. There is of course a problem with this as Paine mentions above – ‘Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication’. Anyway most religions seem to be based on this direct revelation whereby God somehow lowers himself to the level of human language. It is the central claim of Islam that the Qur’an is God speaking, not Mohammed, and it is the central claim of BK that the Murli is God speaking, not Brahma Baba.
Quote:
My understanding of God is as per BK gyan - ie Shiva, a human soul who never takes a body, and as such is a real personality with very powerful (because unfettered by impurity) will.
OK but if God has a will then do you say that for some reason he declines to give us direct revelation on the level of language? If you think that the world being 5000 years old and other things are not true, then the Murli cannot be direct revelation because the whole point of revelation is to reveal the truth. Anyway my point is that language is not the problem here – the world is x many years old and language is perfectly capable of communicating this, if there was a God who was so inclined.
Quote:
Your conception of God may be completely different from mine, but that doesn't mean that either of us are wrong (or right..), we may each have different perceptions and conceptions of reality which are right (or the Truth) individually for us. To me, what matters is that each one's belief works for them.
Ok but what is true on a subjective level (my belief) may of course be false on an objective level. Subjective truth is perhaps more important in the sense that it is all we have. I guess that some metaphysical matters are not wrong or right but rather more or less accurate, so even if religion x is the true religion, it doesn’t necessarily follow that other religions are worthless. However some metaphysical matters are binary true / false for example either there is literal (not poetic) reincarnation or there is not. This is something that God could easily reveal to us if he was so inclined. Anyway on the subject of the two types of direct revelation, it is interesting that most religions have lesser revelations ie to other believers in addition to the primary revelation. This can lead to tension / instability / heresy. So perhaps there is a thin line between a private revelation without language and the kind of revelation which issues in a new religion. This brings me back to Paine again - 'you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts'.
hanuman Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 174 |
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: Revelation |
Uddhava, You must be congratulated on your post. There is, however, another perspective on a Supreme Force and the soul as a metaphysical entity. That other perspective is the tool or science of neuropsychology. About 20 years ago, Richard Gregory of the University of Manchester, published a book, The Mind In Science. That book is a classic on the neuropsychology or psychophysics of perception and decision-making. The perception of the spirits and the Great Spirit, though metaphysical and beyond any paradigm developed by the Scientific Method, is a process parallel to physical perception. The soul through the nervous system, formulates a hypothesis or series of hypotheses based on the sensing through the medium of thought energies. In a manner similar to hypothesis testing by the Scientific Method, the soul can identify a variety of souls and differentiate other souls from the Supreme Force or Great Spirit. Perception of souls, super souls and the Great Spirit by a process similar to scientific hypothesis testing, is a metaphysical universal among all souls of all faiths. Of course, that process of hypothesis testing, though it takes nano- or pico-seconds can be short circuited. Short circuiting can be experienced by dreams, visions or visitations between spirits. _________________ Om Shanti, To my brothers and sisters. Love to you all, Errol bhai
Display posts from previous:
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions | All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group